My point is that measurements say something about how transparent and faithful an amp reproduces the source material. It does not say how or if people like the result, because that depends on personal preference and a lot of other things, which have been mentioned before in this thread.
Thoughts?

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE to measure - shootz, I even flew 1000s of miles last month just to do some measurements. But getting what is measured to correspond to what I hear is sometimes difficult. There is always a subjective note of "do I like it?" And that's an important point.

The subjective side comes when I sit down, put on a piece of music and hear "The Real Thing" or just some speakers and other gear. I.E. - does it sound like what I might hear live? Every recording is different and so is every live event, but there is certainly an overall feel and sound that one can quickly identify as "real." Not many systems I've heard can do it, but it is possible. That's my goal - it has to sound like real music played by real people on real instruments in a real space. That's what I really enjoy, so that's my goal.

Can I bring in another on-topic view? The notion that measurements have no relation to how something actually sounds.

Hard to come up with a measurement with zero correlation to how something actually sounds. I thought a bit and wondered about weight of amplifier. Nope, almost certainly on average a heavier amp will sound better. How about a measurement of width of amplifier front panel? But even that probably has a non-zero correlation with sound (probably slightly positive). How about 'reflection coefficient of amplifier front panel' ? Do amps with matt black front panels sound better than those with high gloss ones?

I'm forced to the conclusion that the whole notion is a straw man.

__________________“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents ... but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” - Max Planck

Yes, Pano, I think that in fact digital audio has been the genesis of the chasm that seems to be growing between the subjectivist & objectivist viewpoint. Why? Because I think it introduced a mathematical basis for the recording of audio that most people can't understand & at the same time it was advertised as perfect & the public bought into it, by & large.

This has led to the situation where a lot of people believe that what they hear from their digital audio systems is perfect because it's not obviously flawed i.e no hiss, no scratches, no clips, no wow & flutter, etc. Maybe it doesn't sound like the original event - it sounds even "better" . This commonly encountered perception of "better" has to be factored into subjective reports of the sound of a device. I'm not sure a lot of people use live performance as the criteria for evaluating an audio system.

What I'm trying to say is that a lot of people are listening to the distortion of digital audio in the form of jitter, CM noise, etc. & thinking/assuming that it is the way it should sound - ultra-realism with lots of attack, etc..

The argument against all that I've said is that it measures better (according to the measurements that are currently used) & this is why it is more insidious & more detrimental - it is more subtle, less obvious & therefore easier to defend as correct.

In the end, this conflict will be to the betterment of audio IFF we actually do strive towards a set of existing or new measurements that more closely match what we perceive as "better" sounding.

No, no, no. You're mostly just caving in to a desire to avoid confrontation.

True up to a point I have no problem with there being confrontation (as long as it remains civil) . Sometimes it is pointless, but sometimes it results in a different perspective, or perhaps even an aha moment. If nothing else it allows one to get a better understanding of the views of others (provided we read what is written rationally and without presupposition).

The reason I started this thread was to try and steer the conversation to an area where it *was* the topic rather than degrading the S/R in other threads where it might rightly be brought up, but tends to drag on and detract from the original threads intent.

Tony.

__________________
Any intelligence I may appear to have is purely artificial!Some of my photos

OK, I'll bite...(putting on flame proof suit)
Anything that can be heard, can be measured. After all , your ears are measuring devices, just poorly calibrated ones. There's also the fact that many different things, internal or external to the listener can affect what is heard (or what one believes they hear). I can listen to my system one day, and it sounds relatively crappy, and the following day, without changing anything, will sound good. Same exact program source, no change in volume setting or anything else. So why the difference? Could be anything from a change in mood, a chunk of ear wax that fell out, or maybe an increase in noise on the power grid. My point is this; the human hearing system is falible and easily fooled, especially when one is "splitting hairs" trying to hear the difference, say, between this resistor and that one. And I'm also not saying no differeces are heard, just that we need to realize that there's no magic involved, if a real difference is heard, then something must be different, and therefore must be measurable in some way, like noise, frequency response, phase change, whatever.
I was somewhat amused following a recent thread here where it was claimed that two separate digital audio files with identical checksums could sound different, not possible. I'd say the percieved differece most likely occured after the sound left the speaker.
The most important thing for me is to just relax and enjoy, and if it isn't sounding good today, it will probably sound better tomorrow. I guess that puts me more on the objective side of this discussion, but it really comes down to every individual's biases and motivations.

Just a quick question, based on these two statements. Most if not all of us are in audio for the enjoyment. So why do we focus so much on the sound, and not on the emotional response to said sound? Emotions are objective, they are chemicals whose concentration can be measured. MRIs can show up whether someone's enjoying themselves or not. So can GSR to some extent and facial expression metrics (FACS by Ekman). There are plenty of methods available so has anyone tried using these?

__________________“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents ... but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” - Max Planck